IMHO GOD > Evolution

[cotjones 10+ year member]

Also we have all missed a key and hilarious point about cotjones.
He has a history of buying into hype whether its religious or car audio related.

He runs all JL.

/THREAD

thats the clearest fallacy i've seen all night... congrats on a completely invalid arguement!!!

 

[elementxero 10+ year member]

thats what i said, there is an objective truth we should be looking for not satisfied with our own opinions

But the inconsistency in that logic is that you say that absolute truth is beyond human understanding, which I would agree with you 100% on. But then you turn around and say, we should look for it because it's possible to understand it as a human?

That's just pure controdiction.

I'm not saying that it isn't possible that Jesus is the savior and we are all wrong, because that would be making suppositions that I believe are out of the realm of human thought/comprehension. What I am saying, is that its hypocritical and arrogant to act like you have it all figured out because you read a thousand year old book written by people who thought they had it all figured out.

I mean, you said it yourself, the objective truth is likely different from all of our experiences.

Which MAKES SENSE.

Okay, you think there was a creator because it seems logical to you. Do you think that idea is more logical than the idea that humans will never figure out something as grandiose as the order of the universe?

Think about scale for a second, humans have been around for this tiny fragment of time in an unfathomably large universe that existed millions and millions of years before we did. For some reason GOD, the ruler of the UNIVERSE, is that concentrated on this one species in an unimaginable timeframe? Even buying into the idea of god, THAT goes against logic.

It's just frustrating that you refuse to look at all the holes in your thinking, all the while stating, I HAVE IT ALL FIGURED OUT GUYS.

I'm really done this time.

 

[elementxero 10+ year member]

thats the clearest fallacy i've seen all night... congrats on a completely invalid arguement!!!

congrats on having a sense of humor in the most absurd cluster**** of a forum on the internet.

 

[DejaWiz 5,000+ posts]

1. we DO NOT have free will, we have VOLITION...

2. i have the will to sprout wings and fly, yet it doesn't happen...

3. i only have the ability to choose from options given to me...

1. You may want to check the definition of Volition.... it's means acting out of will.

2. Pray harder or ask your god for a rebate then?

3. You can, out of your own free will, choose to formulate your own option(s) as an alternative to what's presented in order to expand what must be decided on. Or not choose any of them.

 

[cotjones 10+ year member]

1. You may want to check the definition of Volition.... it's means acting out of will.

it means choosing out of will... you cannot select an option not given to you, whether you only have 1 option, or billions, you can't choose an option not presented to you

3. You can, out of your own free will, choose to formulate your own option(s) as an alternative to what's presented in order to expand what must be decided on. Or not choose any of them.

while it seems that way, you're thinking about it wrong, it's not that you are formutaing your own option, its that you are choosing that particular option

in other words take the options of choosing a drink...

you can choose coke

you can choose water

you can choose not to drink

but you can also die if you don't

you can't drink acid and live

you can't drink something that you don't have

but you do have the option to find some

i like my flying example better...

it doesn't matter how much you decide you are going flap your arms to fly when you run off a cliff, you will fall every time... your will doesn't matter, you can only choose between options

that is volition... the ability to choose

free will would mean your will would affect the possible outcomes... making anything possible...

if you chose to fly then you could fly...

did you have a choice in being born? no is that a violation of free will? absolutely...

but not of volition... you weren't given the choice, therefore you couldn't chose

 

[cotjones 10+ year member]

But the inconsistency in that logic is that you say that absolute truth is beyond human understanding, which I would agree with you 100% on. But then you turn around and say, we should look for it because it's possible to understand it as a human?
That's just pure controdiction.

you are missing my point entirely...

my premise is that there is absolute truth (which we can never be certain of)

but our pursuit of that truth reguardless justifies us...

just because you can't win, does that mean you shouldn't try?

how many times have you put money in a claw machine?

its designed so that it requires faith, you think it doesn't require just as much faith to be an evolutionist? it does... the difference is evolution provides a natureal explanation, while creationism is a harder to swallow- super-natureal explanation

and because absolute truth is not obtainable you have the option to do the best you can and search for it... which is what religion tells you to do, and is what makes sence...

or you can choose to reject it entirely... which seems to me like choosing ignorance and being satisfied with it

I'm not saying that it isn't possible that Jesus is the savior and we are all wrong, because that would be making suppositions that I believe are out of the realm of human thought/comprehension. What I am saying, is that its hypocritical and arrogant to act like you have it all figured out because you read a thousand year old book written by people who thought they had it all figured out.

no one is saying that... well there are people that do, but i hate them probly more than you do... i'll be the first to say i have NO answers period that i can prove without doubt... but the choice to attempt to understand is what brings you out of ignorant apathy

I mean, you said it yourself, the objective truth is likely different from all of our experiences.
Which MAKES SENSE.

correct, thus you should allways be searching for the absolute truth, you may not be able to obtain it, but you'll be alot closer than the one who never thinks about it, and doesn't search because he believes its un-obtainable...

Okay, you think there was a creator because it seems logical to you. Do you think that idea is more logical than the idea that humans will never figure out something as grandiose as the order of the universe?

the order of the universe seems more logical when the creator is logical...

basically what you said (reworded) is :

you can't possibly know for sure so why do you believe?

simple even though i will never know for sure, to the best of my knowledge and logic i believe he exists...

same as you can't know your chair won't colapse under you, but you believe it won't

the only thing truely undoubtable is that everything is doubtable... but everything is also believable

Think about scale for a second, humans have been around for this tiny fragment of time in an unfathomably large universe that existed millions and millions of years before we did. For some reason GOD, the ruler of the UNIVERSE, is that concentrated on this one species in an unimaginable timeframe? Even buying into the idea of god, THAT goes against logic.

actually your arguemant goes against logic because it is in terms of time... keep in mind that for this god to have created the universe he would have to be outside of the bounds of time... so try not to think of eternity as a length of time but rather a state of existence... this isn't just an abstract concept i thought up to justify my arguement, it is a logical neccessity in order for the universe to exist...

before the universe there was no time so the universe couldn't even accidentally(the big bang) form... there could be no force to cause it outside the bounds of time... so a conscious being (with free-will) without the bounds of time is NECCESSARY in order for anything to happen...

in other words if he was in the bounds of time, his existance would require a creator

but outside the bounds of time his existance would require that he has no creator

he couldn't because creation implies a process of time (moving from non-existance to existance

It's just frustrating that you refuse to look at all the holes in your thinking, all the while stating, I HAVE IT ALL FIGURED OUT GUYS.
I'm really done this time.

turn the mirror on yourself for a second...

 

[DejaWiz 5,000+ posts]

1. it means choosing out of will... you cannot select an option not given to you, whether you only have 1 option, or billions, you can't choose an option not presented to you.

2. while it seems that way, you're thinking about it wrong, it's not that you are formutaing your own option, its that you are choosing that particular option

in other words take the options of choosing a drink...

you can choose coke

you can choose water

you can choose not to drink

but you can also die if you don't

you can't drink acid and live

you can't drink something that you don't have

but you do have the option to find some

3. i like my flying example better...

it doesn't matter how much you decide you are going flap your arms to fly when you run off a cliff, you will fall every time... your will doesn't matter, you can only choose between options that is volition... the ability to choose

4. free will would mean your will would affect the possible outcomes... making anything possible...

if you chose to fly then you could fly...

5. did you have a choice in being born? no is that a violation of free will? absolutely...

but not of volition... you weren't given the choice, therefore you couldn't chose

1. And since humans are crafty, the options become infinite. Volition = will.

2. Coke was formulated by humans. Why couldn't I make a new soft drink and thus give myself yet another option?

3. That simply proves that humans do not have the bodily structure to manipulate air resistance in order to create lift. Although, the yearning did lead to the will to invent the aircraft so that we could overcome this limitation.

4. No, free will doesn't mean that. It simply defines the conduct of living things.... that we have the discretion to make choices on our own because the choices are not determined for us. It's synonymous with volition.

I choose to type this out of my own volition.

I choose to type this out of my own free will.

5. Since volition and free will are synonymous, your example makes absolutely no sense. Not to mention that being born is a result of external forces acting upon the baby... the mother's uterus wants that sucker outta there regardless if the baby chooses to be born or not out of it's own free will.

 

[cotjones 10+ year member]

1. And since humans are crafty, the options become infinite. Volition = will.
2. Coke was formulated by humans. Why couldn't I make a new soft drink and thus give myself yet another option?

3. That simply proves that humans do not have the bodily structure to manipulate air resistance in order to create lift. Although the yearning did lead to the will to build aircraft so that we could overcome this limitation in a manner of speaking.

4. No, free will doesn't mean that. It simply defines the conduct of living things.... that we have the discretion to make choices on our own because the choices are not determined for us. It's synonymous with volition.

I choose to type this out of my own volition.

I choose to type this out of my own free will.

5. Since volition and free will are synonymous, your example makes absolutely no sense. Not to mention that being born is a result of external forces acting upon the baby... the mother's uterus wants that sucker outta there regardless if the baby chooses to be born or not out of it's own free will.

again you are thinking of it wrong... those were just additional options.. if your definition of free-will is free to choose than yes it is synanymous with volition, but its not my definition infact there are hundreds of school's of thought conscerning free will... i follow the "incompatableism" theory...

i pasted this:

One of the traditional arguments for incompatibilism is based on an "intuition pump", which posits that if man is determined in his choices of actions, then he must be like other mechanical things that are determined in their behavior. That is, if man's behavior is causally determined, then he is nothing more sophisticated than a wind-up toy, a billiard ball, a puppet, or a robot. Since these things have no free will, then man must have no free will...

i would go farther and say that we only have the ability to choose between our options ergo our options are NOT unlimited ergo we don't have free-will

 

[cotjones 10+ year member]

here's another paste:

Another argument for incompatibilism is that of the "causal chain." Most incompatibilists reject the idea that freedom of action consists simply in "voluntary" behavior. They insist, rather, that free will means that man must be the "ultimate" or "originating" cause of his actions. He must be a causa sui, in the traditional phrase. To be responsible for one's choices is to be the first cause of those choices, where first cause means that there is no antecedent cause of that cause. The argument, then, is that if man has free will, then man is the ultimate cause of his actions. If determinism is true, then all of man's choices are caused by events and facts outside his control. So, if everything man does is caused by events and facts outside his control, then he cannot be the ultimate cause of his actions. Therefore, he cannot have free will.

 

[DejaWiz 5,000+ posts]

i would go farther and say that we only have the ability to choose between our options ergo our options are NOT unlimited ergo we don't have free-will

We have free within our immediate environment.

Hypothetical situation:

You are standing next to a small grove of palm trees measuring sixty by sixty feet on the edge of a desert.

In the middle of the grove is a small clearing with a pond of fresh, cool water. Your drank the last bit of water in your canteen within the past 30 minutes, so you figure it's a great idea to get a drink of water and refill your canteen.

While walking towards the pond, you walk up to a pile of fallen leaves. You feel a slight urge to take a shit. It's not a huge urge, but you have a lot of traveling to do to get back to your base camp, so you figure it would be a good idea to take care of business before you depart. It might be a good idea to grab some leaves to wipe with.

Now you have to choose what you want to do out of the following:

1. Drink water and fill your canteen, then find a place to take a shit and do it, then head back to base camp.

2. Grab some leaves, find a place to take a shit and do it, wipe your *** with the leaves, then go get a drink of water and fill your canteen, then head back to base camp.

3. Get a drink, then head out for base camp figuring you won't need a full canteen and you can just wait to use the bathroom there.

4. Fill the canteen, take a shit in the pond, wet the leaves and then wipe with them, stay in the palm grove since there's a source of water (albeit a bit dirtier now) and possible food to sustain you until you die of old age.

5. Eat a bunch of sand and sit on the ground to find out what the effects are; both short term and long.

5. Add your own choices for probable outcomes! You have the free will to do so!

 

[cotjones 10+ year member]

We have free within our immediate environment.
Hypothetical situation:

You are standing next to a small grove of palm trees measuring sixty by sixty feet on the edge of a desert.

In the middle of the grove is a small clearing with a pond of fresh, cool water. Your drank the last bit of water in your canteen within the past 30 minutes, so you figure it's a great idea to get a drink of water and refill your canteen.

While walking towards the pond, you walk up to a pile of fallen leaves. You feel a slight urge to take a shit. It's not a huge urge, but you have a lot of traveling to do to get back to your base camp, so you figure it would be a good idea to take care of business before you depart. It might be a good idea to grab some leaves to wipe with.

Now you have to choose what you want to do.

1. Drink water and fill your canteen, then find a place to take a shit and do it, then head back to base camp.

2. Grab some leaves, find a place to take a shit and do it, wipe your *** with the leaves, then go get a drink of water and fill your canteen, then head back to base camp.

3. Get a drink, then head out for base camp figuring you won't need a full canteen and you can just wait to use the bathroom there.

4. Fill the canteen, take a shit in the pond, wet the leaves and then wipe with them, stay in the palm grove since there's a source of water (albeit a bit dirtier now) and possible food to sustain you until you die of old age.

5. Eat a bunch of sand and sit on the ground to find out what the effects are, short term and long.

5. Add your own choices for probable outcomes!

while the options seem unlimited, they are not, they are only massively numerous... there are things you don't have the ability to choose... and however you act is determined by an outside force... you shit first because you are touching cloth... or you drink first cause you are REALY thirsty, or maby you pick a random order because you want to believe you have free will... guess what? THATS STILL A CAUSE!!!! it's quite simply impossible for a human to make a choice based on no outside cause... thus... NO-FREE-WILL, only volition

and what most religions call "free-will" is actually describing volition, the term "free-will" is used too losely and actually means something very different (another thing i call "lost in translation")

 

[DejaWiz 5,000+ posts]

w thus... NO-FREE-WILL, only volition

Again, free will and volition are synonymous. They are essentially the same thing.

I chose pepsi over coke out of my own volition.

I chose pepsi over coke out of my own free will.

What is the difference? I'll leave you to ponder than one on your own from here on out.

 

[cotjones 10+ year member]

Again, free will and volition are synonymous. They are essentially the same thing.
I chose pepsi over coke out of my own volition.

I chose pepsi over coke out of my own free will.

What is the difference?

you did not choose pepsi over cok out of your own free-will...

you chose it because there were only those options

you chose it because it tastes better to you

you chose it because you wanted to be random

the one part of the statement you can never eliminate is "BECAUSE", there is allways an antecedent cause which means you can never be the sole determiner of your actions an outside force is ALLWAYS effecting your decision

 

[cotjones 10+ year member]

time for bed... work in the morning!//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/crying.gif.ec0ebefe590df0251476573bc49e46d8.gif

allways a victim of cause... i go to bed because i'm tired and i need sleep to go to work...

i go to work because i need money... i could choose to quit, but it would be because i wanted to...

or mabe i didn't want to and it was because i had to... maby i didn't want to and i didn't have to, but then it was because i wanted to make a decision with no cause... DAMMIT, thats still a cause

 

[sundownz Pro Seller]

tbefore the universe there was no time so the universe couldn't even accidentally(the big bang) form... there could be no force to cause it outside the bounds of time... so a conscious being (with free-will) without the bounds of time is NECCESSARY in order for anything to happen...
in other words if he was in the bounds of time, his existance would require a creator

but outside the bounds of time his existance would require that he has no creator

he couldn't because creation implies a process of time (moving from non-existance to existance

There you go still using time-domain language... still under the assumption that cause and effect applies when no time and space exist at all. You can't say the universe "formed" -- it didn't, not in time or space.

Calling anything the "creator" still implies time-domain... saying he "existed" implies a space domain. Saying the "creator" has free will also implies time-domain... there was a time before and after the creator "willed" something. No action takes place without time, not an action that we could ever begin to understand.

No wonder I lost interest in this thread //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif It hasn't went anywhere in... well... alot of pages.

My point? You need to just admit that you can't understand it and that God existing is no more likely than the universe "coming" from nothing. We cannot possibly understand it either way. I'm okay with the fact that you believe God "made" the Universe -- you have to believe something. But don't give yourself the illusion that it makes ANY sense logically.